Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.
The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
At issue was a delicate test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message. Several states have attempted to impose specific limits on when and where the church members can protest.
The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believes God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events including soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country shouting at grieving families at funerals and displaying such signs as "Thank God for dead soldiers," "God blew up the troops" and "AIDS cures fags."
2010: Free speech vs. privacy 2010: Church says arguments went well 2010: Vet accused of stalking church 2008: Protesting Fred Phelps
RELATED TOPICS
Westboro Baptist Church
Fred Phelps
U.S. Supreme Court
Westboro members had appeared outside the 2006 funeral for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland, outside Baltimore.
Snyder's family sued the church in 2007, alleging invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were later reduced to $5 million.
The church appealed the case in 2008 to a federal appeals court, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's allegations that its First Amendment rights were violated.
Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, said his son was not gay and the protesters should not have been at the funeral.
"I was just shocked that any individual could do this to another human being," Snyder told CNN. "I mean, it was inhuman."
Church members say their broader message was aimed at the unspecified actions of the military and those who serve in it. They believe U.S. soldiers deserve to die because they fight for a country that tolerates homosexuality.
Roberts in his opinion noted the Snyder family was not a "captive audience" to the protests that were conducted several hundred yards away.
"Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service," wrote Roberts. "Snyder could see no more than the tops of the signs when driving to the funeral. And there is no indication that the picketing itself in any way interfered with the funeral itself."
Based on that the court concluded Snyder could not collect damages from Westboro.
But the chief justice showed little sympathy for the message Westboro promotes.
"Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro's funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible," he said. However, "As a nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
The ruling was a narrow one, dealing with the specific, unusual facts of this appeal. Such vocal protests at military funerals are almost entirely confined to this one small group. Roberts said on the free speech question, it was enough to rely on "limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case."
Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented. He said the church's "outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered," he said. "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."
The Supreme Court has never addressed the specific issue of laws designed to protect the "sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services," as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased. But the high court has recognized the state's interest in protecting people from unwanted protests or communications while in their homes.
The justices were being asked to address how far states and private entities like cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict the speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting.
A majority of states across the nation have responded to the protests with varying levels of control over the Westboro church protesters. In Wednesday's case, 48 states and dozens of members of Congress filed an amicus brief in support of the Snyders.
John Ellsworth, chairman of Military Families United, said that military protects the First Amendment rights that members of Westboro use to protest.
"Gold Star families deserve the respect of a grateful nation, not hate from a group who chooses to demonstrate during the funeral of their loved one," he said. "My family has been on the receiving end of their hate and I assure all Gold Star families, this group is an anomaly and your sacrifice does not go without notice."
Church members told the court they have a duty to protest and picket at certain events, including funerals, to promote their religious message: "That God's promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this life is counterbalanced by God's wrath and hell for those who do not obey him."
The congregation is made up mostly of Fred Phelps and his family. The pastor has 13 children, and at least 54 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.
He described himself as an "old-time" gospel preacher in a CNN interview in 2006, saying, "You can't preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God."
Church members have participated in several hundred protests across the country.
In 2009, the high court blocked Missouri's effort to enforce a specific law aimed at the Westboro church. Phelps, daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper and other church members had protested near the August 2005 funeral of a soldier in St. Joseph, Missouri. State lawmakers later passed the "Spc. Edward Lee Myers Law," criminalizing picketing "in front of or about" a funeral location or procession.
The case decided Wednesday is Snyder v. Phelps (09-751).

Click to expand...

As much as I hate Phelps and his group I have to agree with it. First amendment gives to free speech including what we hate.

Sometimes free speech sucks but I would honestly rather have that suck age over that right taken away.

Though the precedent it would set would be useful in certain circumstances, it could easily be abused in the future.

Click to expand...

I read the bulk of the majority opinion and the entirety of the dissent, and I'm shocked to say that for once I fully agree with Alito.

To me the issue wasn't about freedom of speech (I think it's pretty clear that anyone can say that fags are going to hell and so on) but rather how the church targets its victims. Alito discussed (quite thoroughly) how the church goes around saying where it is going to protest ahead of time to get attention. They do this intentionally to families who have recently lost children and siblings (including the family of the 9 year-old who was killed in Tucson). Would you want to know ahead of time that a media circus is going to interrupt your family's otherwise peaceful and private funeral?

I have no problem with the church writing editorials, shooting commercials, marching in the streets and on street corners like other protestors, or any of the other acts of speech that actually put forth an opinion without directly assaulting a particular individual. Here, however, the church goes after grieving families when they are most vulnerable. The families are a captive audience (unless you're seriously suggesting that they can or should freely leave in the middle of their son's funeral) during the funeral, and are made to suffer for as long as the church sees fit to draw attention to them.

To me the church's behavior is a classic example of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The church knows that it is harassing and emotionally disturbing people who have already suffered a great deal, and this causes distress for the victims that doesn't need to happen for the 1st Amendment to stand. The church doesn't need to protest at funerals for its opinions to be heard, and it doesn't need to cause a media frenzy beforehand. Those are just attention grabbing tactics, which while otherwise would be understandable, simply cannot trump the rights of grieving families.

Free speech is free speech, no matter how abhorrent their message may be.

Click to expand...

It's not the message, it's where you can say it. You have the right to preach any religious book you want, but you can't do it somewhere that doesn't let people leave freely (called the "captive audience" rule).

Free speech is free speech, no matter how abhorrent their message may be.

I'm shocked that of all justices, Alito was the lone dissenter.

Click to expand...

Could of been a lot like the Brown vs Board of education.

In private it was a pretty split vote but the judtices knew that the ruling was important so they came out with a 9-0 vote for it.

In this case they could of all agreed that yes Phelps had the right under free speech but at the same time knew he was well crap and needed a good dissention writing so the one that would send the strongest message was the one that wrote it.

Ultimately this is a situation where it is up to all of us, not as a nation, or as voters so much as a culture, to make it plain that this Westboro gang are an antisocial aberration with regards to the other 300-odd million of us.

They can profess their beliefs ad nauseum, and we will drown them out by going about our business. I wish the media would ignore them as well.

A late-Cousin of mine (who was Gay) and myself (a Christian) had the unfortunate experience of dealing with these type of people.

My late-Cousin, obviously, with his mis-givings. With me and group I was with, they had told us that they were the only "real Christians" and that we had to join them or we are essentially evil just like everyone else.

Yes, great for "Free Speech", but this Christian Cult Group is, unfortunately, extremely attention-starved and will do what it takes to be in the forefront of news.

It will be interesting to see what they do to take things to the "next level". That could be showing up a Military Funeral homes and gavesite funerals, blowing up GLBT establishments, etc. This is what they proudly strive for.

Knowing some personally, their ultimate goal is to take over the US Goverment and make it a Christian Fundamental one (don't laugh, some of their stuff I've seen like sermons, and newsletters are *pretty scary*...).

Knowing some personally, their ultimate goal is to take over the US Goverment and make it a Christian Fundamental one (don't laugh, some of their stuff I've seen like sermons, and newsletters are *pretty scary*...).

Click to expand...

Then they better start procreating faster than rabbits since it's mostly a family affair. Also, most sects think they're the only "real" ones. Look at all the Protestants who don't consider that Catholics are Christians.

.............Those are just attention grabbing tactics, which while otherwise would be understandable, simply cannot trump the rights of grieving families.

Click to expand...

Thats just the thing, as hateful, and disturbing as the churches actions may be, they are not "trumping" the rights of the families. They (the family) paid to essentially rent the funeral home for the day. Now since it is private property that they essentially own for the day they have a right to deny anyone access to the building, and whatever property around the building that is considered "private." They do not however have a right to deny people the ability to voice their opinion on PUBLIC property, even if that opinion is crazy.

Well I agree what the church is doing is hateful, and in poor taste, they have every right to do it as long as they stay far enough away from the actual funeral.

It's not the message, it's where you can say it. You have the right to preach any religious book you want, but you can't do it somewhere that doesn't let people leave freely (called the "captive audience" rule).

Click to expand...

Where exactly is the "captive audience" rule?

First Amendment said:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

Now like I said I think that Fred and his gang are a bunch of crazy bigots, and what their doing is disgusting, but as much as some people might not like it, they have every right to do it.

Thats just the thing, as hateful, and disturbing as the churches actions may be, they are not "trumping" the rights of the families. They (the family) paid to essentially rent the funeral home for the day. Now since it is private property that they essentially own for the day they have a right to deny anyone access to the building, and whatever property around the building that is considered "private." They do not however have a right to deny people the ability to voice their opinion on PUBLIC property, even if that opinion is crazy.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Supreme Court didn't really touch on this. They left open the ability for state and local governments to increase distance requirements for funeral processions and cemeteries. It is very possible that because of the Phelps' actions, many states will increase their minimum distance rules.

For the Supreme Court, the Phelps family was far enough way to not interfere with the funeral (Roberts wrote that the petitioner could only see the tops of their signs).

However, like Alito, I am less concerned with precisely where the protest was happening than with the predatory behavior the Phelps family engages in. To me their practice of using the media to target and harass families prior to the funeral is troublesome because at that point it's less about expressing an opinion than about using the media for personal attention, at the expense of others.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress [IIED] (which is what the Phelps family was sued for) doesn't usually take into account the location of the tort, only whether or not the act was cruel and whether or not it advanced a legitimate public or private interest. Phelps did not need to use the machinery of the media before the funeral to have access to his free speech. In fact, one might posit that Phelps would be least obstructed if picketing/protesting locations were kept a secret (since then the motorcycle gang which usually shields grieving families from seeing them would not have a heads-up). Instead, Phelps intentionally targets families and launches not only a media frenzy on the family, but also forces them to keep in mind at all times leading up to the funeral and during the funeral, that a hate group is just beyond the cemetery's walls waiting to harass them further.

It also bears keeping in mind that even though this particular father could only see the Phelp's to a limited extent, others have had to deal with them in plain sight. This is where your second question comes in:

Quote

Where exactly is the "captive audience" rule?

Click to expand...

The captive audience rule is one that has been carved out through decades of First Amendment litigation. It is one of the few restrictions on free speech that the Supreme Court has recognized (others include fighting words and the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater imminent danger doctrine). It essentially holds that where an audience is not free to otherwise shield itself or remove itself from speech, freedom of speech can be restricted. The most common application of this doctrine is in public schools during assemblies. However, it can broadly be defined as any place where the audience would be physically unable to leave, or if it could leave, it would surrender something extremely valuable.

For families at a funeral, I think it's very unfair to ask them to surrender the peaceful funeral in exchange for Phelps' speech that can be done at any other place and time. The family cannot redo a funeral, and if they can hear and see the Phelps family during the funeral, they have no reasonable alternative to escape from that speech.

The Supreme Court chose not to extend the doctrine in this case to families at a funeral, but I think that was an error in judgement. Funerals are typically the most tragic events individuals can attend in their lives, and a funeral for a child certainly would be the most tragic among them. I doubt any one of the eight justices who were in the majority would leave the funeral for their child, and yet they're asking families who are the target of hate groups to do that.

Quote

Well I agree what the church is doing is hateful, and in poor taste, they have every right to do it as long as they stay far enough away from the actual funeral.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what the case turned on though. For the majority, the Phelps family wasn't close enough, and for the dissent, it was not about distance but about abuse before the funeral.

I don't think anyone really thinks the Phelps family should be stopped from protesting in general, but if they cause injury to someone by being brutally abusive, then why shouldn't they pay like other tortfeasors?

Quote

Now like I said I think that Fred and his gang are a bunch of crazy bigots, and what their doing is disgusting, but as much as some people might not like it, they have every right to do it.

Click to expand...

This is one of those cases where I feel that people need to remember that the First Amendment only protects you from the government preventing speech. It only is only a balancing factor in civil litigation, which is what the Snyder case was. The First Amendment does not give you the right to say anything without being the target of a lawsuit. Courts are full of suits for libel, slander, and IIED. If you or I were to go up to a grieving mother and tell her that her child was off to hell because he served for a country that encouraged[insert whatever you like here] and if we knew that was bound to cause distress, we would be sued for IIED and we would most likely lose, or at least we would have before this case.

I agree that the state or Federal governments should not restrict the Phelps family unreasonably, but they should have to pay the piper if they cause harm. It seems to me that they did cause harm in this case, and they should have to pay a monetary reward to the injured party just like anyone else who crosses the line.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.